(13-01-2017 11:27 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote: How this would actually work is that the first proposition is 'It Is a Fact That Person A is Currently Married'. Okay, so what burden of proof do we need for this to be considered a fact, to be evidently true? Well, a legal marriage license with a valid and legal marriage certificate would be required. If however those documents were unable to be produced, or were fraudulent, or if we found evidence of a divorce? Well then, the proposition itself that 'It Is a Fact That Person A is Currently Married' is false, because it is not factually or evidently true. He could be married or not, but without sufficient evidence to back up the proposition, you cannot claim it as a 'fact'. Notice however that this is different from 'It Is a Fact That Person A is Currently Unmarried'.

There's a further, and important, difference between evaluating whether person A is married, and evaluating whether god G exists. And that is, person A and their alleged spouse are visible, observable, scrutinizable natural things. If you observe them living together, canoodling together, shopping together, bickering together, wearing the traditional engagement / wedding rings, than you can trivially collect a ton of circumstantial evidence that they are, if not actually officially married, living as if they were. Whereas god G is invisible / intangible and you can observe and test NOTHING that is actually REAL. All you can do is observe your own mental fantasies and theological musings and that of others including whatever is written in your holy book of choice. Worse, ALL the evidence points AWAY from these being tethered to reality and TOWARD them being sheer speculation at best and cynical fabrication at worst.

(13-01-2017 11:27 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote: How this would actually work is that the first proposition is 'It Is a Fact That Person A is Currently Married'. Okay, so what burden of proof do we need for this to be considered a fact, to be evidently true? Well, a legal marriage license with a valid and legal marriage certificate would be required.

If however those documents were unable to be produced, or were fraudulent, or if we found evidence of a divorce? Well then, the proposition itself that 'It Is a Fact That Person A is Currently Married' is false, because it is not factually or evidently true

lol, no. If I refuse to provide you a copy of my marriage license, that wouldnt mean that it's false that I'm currently married.

Apparently you can't understand that if I had no evidence one way or the other for a propisition, the response wouldn't be it's false, but indeterminable. If the proposition was it is a fact that FBH is married, with a T of F next to it. I'd tell my professor Im not able to determine this one way or the other. Or if there was evidence he was divorced or forged his martial license I'd indicate it is F, but not if I don't have evidence one way or the other. Not sure why this is so such a difficult point for you to understand. Perhaps your anger is clouding your judgement.

Secondly, perhaps you require to see a marriage license to determine whether anyone is married, kind of like how birthers need to see a birth certificate to determine if Obama was born in the US, while I'll likely accept your word as sufficient, particularly if I have no reason to think you'd lie about this. Someone's word might be sufficient evidence, a wedding ring on their finger alone might be sufficient, etc.

Quote:but without sufficient evidence to back up the proposition, you cannot claim it as a 'fact'.

Ah I see what you're doing. Let's not create strawman now. I was speaking of believing something is true (distinct from knowing) not claiming something is fact. I don't know for a fact that you're a male, but I strongly believe you are a male , by your tone, manner of speech, temper, even though ive never seen a picture of you, or ever heard you explicitly state your gender. Perhaps you don't feel comfortable drawing such a conclusion based on temperament alone, but that's you not me. My belief here could be wrong, but Im fairly confident that I'm right. I believe it's true, without holding that it's a fact that it's true. Perhaps if I met you in person I might hold it as a fact.

Quote:Mainly that you didn't at all understand the definition of 'incredulity' and thought it somehow didn't magically apply to you.

No I pointed out that by definition incredulity has to do with being unwilling or unable to believe something.

And secondly the claim of incredulity seems incredulous itself. You and others haven't done a good job of establishing this, and it appears more to stem for your temper, than a rational assement.

You can't particularly appeal to incredulity just because someone disagrees with, or holds a belief you despise.

I believe God exist, now what am i unwilling or unable to believe? Just because I don't believe Y, and that I'm not persuaded to hold Y is true, is not sufficient reason to claim incredulity.

What's the difference between someone who strongly believes God exist, and is not incredulous about it, and someone who is?

But I know the game, you're not interested in whether your accusation here is true or not, it's merely appealed to for the sake of insult, and for that very reason you'd cling to it, even when it's not even accurately established.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."